§Why CasetextPricing

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON v. J-M MANUFACTURING

Amicus Curiae Brief of Association of Corporate Counsel

8 Cited authorities

  1. Flatt v. Superior Court

    9 Cal.4th 275 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where the requisite substantial relationship exists, "access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation (relevant, by definition, to the second representation) is presumed and disqualification of the attorney's representation of the second client is mandatory; indeed, the disqualification extends vicariously to the entire firm"

  2. Concat LP v. Unilever, PLC

    350 F. Supp. 2d 796 (N.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 152 times
    Holding that disqualification is a "drastic" measure that should be used only when "absolutely necessary"

  3. In re Congoleum Corp.

    426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding special counsel's employment was "contrary to section 327" where it had a pecuniary interest that "prevent[ed] it from being completely loyal to [the debtor's] interests"

  4. Visa U.S.A., Inc. v. First Data Corp.

    241 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2003)   Cited 73 times
    Finding the client gave informed consent, reasoning, in part, that the client was a Fortune 500 company; it had its own legal department; it routinely hired national law firms to handle its more complex legal matters, and accordingly, it was “expected to understand the full extent of what it waived....”

  5. Western Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.

    98 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 25 times
    Holding ineffective an "open-ended" conflict waiver signed by a sophisticated client that purported to indefinitely waive conflicts in any matter not substantially related and did not identify a potentially adverse client, the types of potential conflicts, or the nature of the potential future representations

  6. Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance

    105 F. Supp. 3d 1100 (E.D. Cal. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    Finding generic advance waiver signed by a sophisticated client "too broad and too stale to cover the current conflict"

  7. In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation

    407 F. Supp. 2d 607 (D.N.J. 2005)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that when parties work together pursuant to a joint defense agreement, it “could create implied attorney-client or fiduciary obligations under certain circumstances”

  8. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,152 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or